Pages

Showing posts with label Occupy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Occupy. Show all posts

Monday, June 23, 2014

Civil disobedience to terrorism

In today's social vocabulary the term radicalized is usually applied to an individual or group embracing Islamic terrorism.
***
image: reworked photo of 9/11, South Tower
upstateNYer, The Machine Stops, Wikipedia
***

But in a world increasingly out-of-balance, economically and politically, the instances of a person or group being wounded by the 'system,' whichever system it is, mount in number.  A recent attempt to speak out in the form of Occupy was summarily dismissed by local authorities, sometimes by unnecessary measures.
***
***

Defining civil disobedience becomes a philosophical exercise.  Quoting the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
The term ‘civil disobedience’ was coined by Henry David Thoreau in his 1848 essay to describe his refusal to pay the state poll tax implemented by the American government to prosecute a war in Mexico and to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law. In his essay, Thoreau observes that only a very few people – heroes, martyrs, patriots, reformers in the best sense – serve their society with their consciences, and so necessarily resist society for the most part, and are commonly treated by it as enemies. Thoreau, for his part, spent time in jail for his protest. Many after him have proudly identified their protests as acts of civil disobedience and have been treated by their societies – sometimes temporarily, sometimes indefinitely – as its enemies.

The Civil Rights Movement and protests against the Vietnam War were acts of civil disobedience.  The assassination of Martin Luther King and Kent State Shootings are examples of what can happen when wronged or dissident groups speak up in America.  The article Domestic Terrorism in America During the 1960s and 1970s gives a succinct history dissent during that periond of history.  Pop History Dig has a page devoted to the reaction to the Kent State Shootings.
***
John Paul Filo, Kent State massacre, ©Valley News-Dispatch
***

One thing is clear: open protests simply cause a war-like reaction from those in power. Members of the 99% who recognize the threats inherent in the growing economic gap in so-called first world countries, realize that your strength is in numbers and the 1% cannot survive without your economic support.

 -- Marge


Monday, February 25, 2013

2011: Year of revolution

You may not hear much about it now, but the Occupy Movement movement continues.  You know, the one that states "we are the 99%."  But before I expand on what's current with the movement, let me give a little more background.

The Occupy Wall Street movement started in Zuccotti Park in September 2011 and was soon followed by Occupy London, Occupy Oakland, and other Occupy <locale>s.  According to this article, "Occupy Wall Street: From A Blog Post To A Movement,"  by Bill Chappell, Occupy Wall Street was inspired by the Arab Spring. (The comments following this article are of interest.)  Both revolts began in 2011.  Many news sources cite the self-sacrifice of Mohamed Bouazizi in December, 2010, as the event that touched off the Arab Spring.  To help refresh your (and my) memory, here are timelines for the Occupy Movement and Arab Spring.

V masks became a symbol for the Occupy Wall Street movement, according to this article in the Huffington Post.


Also, a poster was produced by street artist Shephard Fairey


Currently two websites document and carry the Occupy Movement forward:  Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Together.  There are four Occupy offshoots -- Rolling Jubilee, Occupy Sandy, Occupy Our Homes, and Occupy Student Debt -- working on making a difference according to a blog post by Stephanie Whiteside at Current TV.  Two publications (that I know of) have news pages that regularly report Occupy news:  The Huffington Post and The Guardian.

By February 2012 all of the American protesters had been evicted and the movement essentially shut down.  Fortunately the Arab Spring fared better.

-- Marge

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Whether to protest or not to protest

This morning I received a request to sign a petition protesting HR347, passed in March 2012.  This is some of the text in the email:
Imagine an America in which the government can prevent protest in any public space it deems fit. Where wearing a dissenting shirt around an elected official could be construed as a felony. Where First-Amendment protections become privileges subjectively doled out by the state. Sadly, that America is pretty much here.
In March, Congress passed HR 347, a bill that limits Americans' ability to protest in public and on government grounds. Mainstream media didn't raise peep, but now there's finally some anger building. The bill, passed almost unanimously, makes it a federal offense punishable by up to ten years in prison to "knowingly" protest in the vicinity of the Secret Service -- that is anywhere the Secret Service "is or will be temporarily visiting."
Considering some of the crazy decisions government has been making in the last few years, I jumped on the band wagon -- signed and posted the following to my Facebook page [note: format altered]:
10 years in prison for peaceful protest, thanks to the "Anti-Protest Bill" HR 347 -- Let's change it
act.watchdog.net
You walk into a campaign event holding a dissenting sign. Or you wear a shirt critical of a senator in the airport she's passing through. Or you organize a peaceful protest at a government building. All of these could be deemed felonies by Congress's new "Anti-Protest Bill." Act now to amend it!
Then I started wondering -- if it was passed in March and no one said much, what's it really about then?
If anyone would speak up about it, it would be the ACLU.  Their one article, titled "How Big a Deal is H.R. 347, That “Criminalizing Protest” Bill?" by Gabe Rottman states
Recent days have seen significant concern about an unassuming bill with an unassuming name: the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011." The bill, H.R. 347, has been variously described as making the First Amendment illegal or criminalizing the Occupy protests.
The truth is more mundane, but the issues raised are still of major significance for the First Amendment.
It's important to note — contrary to some reports — that H.R. 347 doesn't create any new crimes, or directly apply to the Occupy protests. The bill slightly rewrites a short trespass law, originally passed in 1971 and amended a couple of times since, that covers areas subject to heightened Secret Service security measures.
Here's a copy of bill H.R. 347 (PDF format).

While looking around for info, I did find an interesting and relatively new site called the Inquisitr; this is from the about page:
The Inquisitr offers a constantly updated mix of the latest stories to hit the web, covering a diverse spectrum of topic areas including technology, news, sport, entertainment and offbeat stories.
Founded in May 2008...
The quote below is from an article, "President Obama Signs 'Anti-Protest' Bill H.R. 347"
Occupy DC protesters are calling the modifications an infringement on their First Amendment rights, because of the areas of D.C. that have been added to the protected areas portion of the act. Approximately 80 protesters organized a silent march to symbolize their Freedom of Speech being taken away–some even taped their mouths closed to visually show their feelings about the bill. The part of the Bill of Rights they are referring to is the following:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Here's a toon commemorating an Occupy Wall Street event from John Cole at the Times-Tribune:

I took the notice off my Facebook page. Now I'm wondering if the bill has set a precedent.


-- Marge